Two questions:

• What do you believe doomers teach us about sociology in an inter-networked society?
• What do you believe doomers teach us about civilised debate?

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999

Answers

What do *you* teach us about civilized debate, Andy?

-- Typhon Blue (typhonblue@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Doh

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

AR,

Take a look at ALL the "questions" you've asked about "GI's". Seems to me you've got us all figured out already, you just ask the questions to stroke your over inflated ego. Just my GI=opinion.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 28, 1999.

I want my mommy ...

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Seems to me that Andy Ray is doing what Al-d did, and got deleted for...starting numerous threads with erroneous questions.

Perhaps we should consider deleting these posts of his until he figures it out? Al-d manages fairly well now, and is using humor! I love that!

Not that I want to squash Andy Ray's rights, of course....well, maybe.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), July 28, 1999.

AR

"Doomers" teach us that in every society there is a small sub-set willing to prepare for possibilities that are catastrophic but unlikly. They also provide contrast to the majority who, having been warned about a possible problem, will do nothing. I myself, at this late date, estimate a 1 in 75 chance that the lights go out. Yet I still don't like the odds and prepare accordingly. It's just not logical not to. I notice people are recluctant to consider that which is outside of their experience. We haven't had any real hard times since the Depression. We have ALL been living in a historical annomaly of exceptionally good times.

This also causes me to wonder "Who would the masses listen to, and why? What constitutes credibility?"

The civilized debate question: The "doomer" subset contains the same percentage of rude and inarticulate people that the rest of our scoiety is blessed with. (Not to mention bad spellers!) Rudeness is "In" and manners are "Out" in case you haven't noticed. Debate is no longer taught in school, nor is logic. Courtesy is not being taught at home to the extent that it was when I was young. "Doomers" are certainly not the only ones who suffer from problems with debate. Look to the popularity of humor at the expense of others on TV, the suceptibility of Email to be precieved as antagonistic, arrogance of technical IS people (which may spring from the resentment of having non-techies telling us how to do things and then having to clean up their mess) and a lack of Judeo-Christian morals and the kindness they taught as a probable explanation for the decline in civilized debate.

Question. You certainly do seem to have put GI's in to the lab rat role. I infer this (perhaps incorrectly) from the tone of your posts. Do you believe that the "pollies" represent the norm and are not also afflicted with a lack of the capacity for civilized debate?

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 28, 1999.

eyes_open,

You typed:
Who would the masses listen to, and why? What constitutes credibility?
Excellent questions - to the heart of the matter, even. Most, on both sides of the issue, have followed the leadings of those they deem credible experts. In other words, is there some pre-disposition to one side or the other? One question being answered by the (preschool- level) responses to my questions is the nature and scope of this predisposition of some for the doomer side of the argument.

One scenario I wonder about goes to the heart of it: What if absolutely nothing noticable happens 000101, and the populace at large becomes over-confident regarding the very real legitimate weaknesses of our social infrastructure that doomers have capitalised upon, and this then becomes a factor in a more likely crisis which the doomers see approaching? Who then will listen to their arguments? They will be marginalised as "the group who believed Y2K was going to destroy socitey." Forever.

Regarding the inability of Pollys to maintain a rational debate - you are correct. The percentage of rude dolts seems equal on both sides, at least to me. It is an unfortunate sign of the times, in my opinion, that any argument plummets to the level of the fouteen-year- old with the faster modem and the most time on his hands. And this may teach us more about an inter-networked society than anything else regarding Y2K.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Andy Ray commented:

"Most, on both sides of the issue, have followed the leadings of those they deem credible experts. In other words, is there some pre-disposition to one side or the other? One question being answered by the (preschool- level) responses to my questions is the nature and scope of this predisposition of some for the doomer side of the argument. "

Andy Ray, talk about being DEAD WRONG, you just made a HUGE FOOL out of yourself. The folks around here are looking for FACTS you NITWIT. They can an do THINK for themselves.

I'd be interested in knowing who your leader is and what exactly your AGENDA is and who is footing the bill !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 28, 1999.

tammy faye & andy ray,both use too much=MAKE-UP.

-- andy faye. (dogs@zianet.com), July 28, 1999.

What can ignorant fools who ask STUPID questions on the TB2000 forum tell us about de-evolution???

sniffin'...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 28, 1999.

AR

You wrote: "Most, on both sides of the issue, have followed the leadings of those they deem credible experts. In other words, is there some pre-disposition to one side or the other? "

Let's try to shed some light on this issue first. I would think credibility comes from a history of verifiable statements. Does it? Apparently not. Having followed the gun issue for several decades I have become familiar with the arguments put forth by both sides. (I know this issue well enough to use it as an example). Those favoring retaining our 2nd ammendment rights have an excellent track record of making arguments based on facts. They can site studies showing that criminals avoid those they think are armed and fear armed citizens moret han police (study done by Rossi and Wright), that peole who use weapoons to defend themselves escape injury far more often that those who choose any other action including complete compliance (Study by Kleck) and more recently can point to a study by Dr. John Lott (More guns, Less crime) using FBI uniform crime statistics that counties that allow citizens to carry concealed firearms show a drop in violent crime compared to counties that don't. The anti-gunners have the "invisible gun scare" which claimed that guns using plastic parts were invisible to airport x-ray machines. This was proven false. They claimed that people who try to use guns to defend themselves more often have those guns used on themselves, also proven false. And they claim that "assault weapons" a term coined to invoke a mental image of an assault rifle when actually speaking of semi-auto rifles and pistols, are the "weapon of choice for drug dealers", when if fact, these weapons are used in less than 1% of all crimes. (NOTE: there is much much more evidence that is not being presented here due to space issues. Also, names of studies can be provided if needed.)

You would think that pro-2nd amendment people would have greater credibility in this debate. This turns out not to be the case. It is often the anti-gun right organization that get media coverage and whose word is taken as gospel by reporters.

Why would this be? What is lacking?

1) The media. At this point it's probably safe to say that there is a pre-disposition to believe that guns cause crime. This would lead me to believe that journalists that investigate claims made by organizations are rare or ignored. They also probably produce fewer "sound bites" if they are off doing irrelevant things like verifying their information. Since TV news programs need to be as entertaining as what ever they share a time slot with the medium does not lend itself to accurate journalism replete with a list of sources and facts. (snore)

2) We, as a nation, would rather go out and play. Having followed an issue closely enough to know what really is going on, I can confirm that it means reading newspapers and news magazines from diffeent editorial viewpoints. (It helps to realize that no one is completely objective, not even ourselves). This takes time. With easily 20 issues a month important enough to follow we would have to spend quite a few hours a week keeping up with current events. Most people will not spare the time and prefer at best "News Lite" from the TV. Quick and easy and done in 30 minutes.

3) There is ALOT of information out there. Much of it is useless, but even deciding which is which takes time.

4) There are many more recreational activites available to us. This includes more people having the money to take advantage of them. They distract us from events that we perhaps should spend more time looking in to. Fun can be addicting, especially if little or no effort is requitred to have it. Think, computer games, TV and movies and what it has done to more labor intensive fun like reading books, going fishing or rock climbing.

Perhaps point number 4 can start to explian why societies become decadent and decline.

But back to the public "debate" on gun issues. Both sides presented an argument. One side had verifiable facts. The other frequently put forth emotional arguments and/or fallacy. The fallacy laden side (shall we call them "fallic"?) never achives the lack of credibility one would think because the media never actually investigate the story and the public is not inclined to investigate it either, despite the fact that the issue concerns one of their civil rights that their ancestors fought and died to win them.

Now if nothing happens on 01/01/00 I would guess that perhaps the three people identified with the Y2K issue will be pronounced "wrong" and the public will forget this too. The rest of us will not be identified with the Y2K controversy and if we (people who are likely to take seriously the possibility that things won't always be this good) see another possible crisis and point it out it will get about as much attention as this one has.

Hmmmm. This post is plenty long and some what disjointed due to interruptions on my end. (That means BORING!) I'll leave the second alone for now.

When reading over long posts it's hard to keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 28, 1999.

eyes_open,

If I follow your reasoning correctly, you are stating that those with the facts can be overwhelmed with rhetoric - correct? That, I think, lends an explanation to this argument, I believe. Interesting...

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

One scenario I wonder about goes to the heart of it: What if absolutely nothing noticable happens 000101, and the populace at large becomes over-confident regarding the very real legitimate weaknesses of our social infrastructure that doomers have capitalised upon, and this then becomes a factor in a more likely crisis which the doomers see approaching? Who then will listen to their arguments? They will be marginalised as "the group who believed Y2K was going to destroy socitey." Forever.

Even if a 10-mile wide meteor was going to impact earth, we still would have people claiming that it's "no big deal." A few disruptions, sure, but no changes in our way of living.

My point, is that it doesn't matter. You'll have polly's no matter what the situation is.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), July 28, 1999.

AR

The point was, credibility can't be assigned if facts are not verified.

The short version goes like this:

"No one cares."

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), July 28, 1999.

eyes_open,

Agreed.

Re-reading my earlier post, I did not mean to imply that the facts you pointed out added validity to either side of the debate - it can actually work for both if properly employed. Your points regarding the weapons debate in the US are well-made. I am not as familiar with the arguments as you, but I have seen similar debate tactics in action (in non-Y2K-related debates). Thank you for stirring the mind.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Andy Rays plans for destroying this forum

-- Had it (with@this.troll), July 29, 1999.

y2k seems to have little to do with anything rational.doomers will either be embarased and relieved.Or the poly's will find themselves,many for the first time,in a situation they can't talk or wish themselves out of.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 30, 1999.